NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution
From the Daily Tech, Michael Andrews. (h/t to Joe D’Aleo)
Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.
[NOTE: there is evidence of solar impact on the surface temperature record, as Basil Copeland and I discovered in this report published here on WUWT titled Evidence of a Lunisolar Influence on Decadal and Bidecadal Oscillations In Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Anthony]
Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA
study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.
Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center,
“Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”
Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes,
“The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth’s global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012.”
According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth’s outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.3 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.
While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.
The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA’s own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study’s members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.
NOTE: for those that wish to see the original NASA Goddard article which sparked both the Daily Tech and Science Daily news stories referenced above, you can read it here:
http://erc.ivv.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html
– Anthony
OT- but, sadly, relevant I think. I’m currently watching the BBC Parliament channel (Yup, I’m sad, move on)- and the debate is about Energy and Climate Change Questions. The Government bench (El Gordonistas) has about six or seven bodies present while the opposition (of all shades) have maybe 3 times that number.
Folks , we’re talking 30 out of about 650 elected “for the people and by the people” corpses who have deigned that the end of the world as we know it is worth turning up for! Mind you, I’ve more respect for these 30 corpses than the 620 blood-sucking zombies whose priorities (thanks to the Daily T) are divided between self-preservational, fiscal-audit obfuscation and sheer scientific ignorance.
Thank you, UK politicians for displaying to the world and prosterity that you’re a bunch of self-snips!!!
Pamela Gray (17:51:10) :
I’ll toss in tidal heating from Sun & Moon on Earth as a baseline candidate.
The temperature of the Earth at a depth sufficient enough to remove all external sources. Establish a gradient from suface down to baseline. Go from there.
I’ve noticed that every evening when the sun goes down, so does the temperature. Maybe I should write a paper on that!
I am very frustrated with my government. They are planning to jack the cost of all our energy sources to slow “global warming”, and our forecast here in Montana calls for rain turning to snow on Saturday and Sunday. It may be time for a revolution.
Frank Mosher @16:20:21
NASA lost its way a long time back, during the ’70s when the cut-backs were made and the space shuttle was developed. After the success of Apollo and Spacelab, they lost their way, aided by political interference.
However, the planetary exploration program is still a source of pride for NASA; and, given the right political leadership, they can re-scale the Moon and do good things there. Then to Mars. But, not with the current institutional bureaucracy and political leadership.
Excuse me, but 1.3 watts per square meter is 1% of 1361 watts per square meter, not 0.1%
Thats a order of magnitude difference in warming.
John F. Hultquist @16:37:48
“. . . extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output.”
“May have been partly responsible for the little ice age” apart from the Blue Parrot denial of this statement, it is an astounding admittal by NASA that ther WAS A LITTLE ICE AGE! This is osmething that the warmmonegers deny.
“..may reflect cyclic or irregular changes…” Well, talk about having cake and eating!! The changes were cyclic, or maybe irregular. Well, what else could they be??? Stochastic? No, that’s irregular. Seasonal; cyclic. They’ve just about covered all bases with this phrase.
Surely, the way the sun controls our climate is through it’s magnetic field.
Looks like using f17+f13 corrections satellite channels has resulted in a realistic correction to ice extent data. In fact Arctic ice has been within NORMAL SD since mid 2008! Maybe that massive correction done around mid 08 (subject of a post on WUWT) was a mistake after all…
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
reason NORSEX usually adjusts data very quickly if errors found. They haven’t for 48 hrs now…
That NASA page has a comment submission form at the end, but apparently they dont actually display any comments, despite stating moderation rules. Who are they moderating for?
Also, they continue to claim the LIA was restricted to Europe, when we know from speleotherms that the LIA happened as far away from Europe as New Zealand (A. Lorrey, 2008).
I would say this article is a typical piece of damage control spin.
Maybe certain people can ease up on Piers Corbyn and Henrik Svensmark now.
There is SNOW forecasted for Montana this weekend. Where’s the warming? http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=59427&wuSelect=WEATHER
Mike Lorrey says:
“Excuse me, but 1.3 watts per square meter is 1% of 1361 watts per square meter, not 0.1%
Thats a order of magnitude difference in warming.”
You may wish to check your math on this. Likely you will wish you had double checked before clicking submit comment.
Geoff Sharp (17:09:54) :
I think the majority of readers of this blog attribute solar fluctuations as a big player towards climate fluctuations, the downstream processes might not be completely understood but the overall picture is clear. Now NASA is backing up and beginning to show signs of breaking away from the AGW camp.
I don’t see it that way, I see NASA producing a study in which the mathemagical variables have been adjusted to conclude that solar variation accounts for 0.1 of a degree Celsius in temperature change in the Earths climate. With this insignificant linear mathemagical result the finger is firmly pointed back at the political objective. AGW.
I wouldn’t be too heartened by this paper. I think this is a bit of sidewinding to be able to explain the temporary “interuption in rampant AGW”. It is not even a gradual change in direction, but rather a way to be able to pull this story out when we argue that the models aren’t working, CO2 is going up but its getting colder out. I’ve been noticing this shift for the last 2 years: HADCentre folks admonishing the press from getting too hyped up; Climate Change instead of Global Wqrming; moving from the “were all dead in 100 months” to “there could be a 20 year cooling period then we all drown” and even Monbiot now saying “get off the polar bears and ice caps already – there are already 300,000 people in poorer countries dying each year from global warming”.
Remember these guys have all been taking lessons from the advertising and image making agencies who are telling them “if you don’t get off the nutty edge, you won’t get your message across to reasonable people”,”don’t make hard deadlines like the crazy people who crop up every generation carrying signs telling us that the world is going to end in two weeks” “don’t use scary words, don’t say trainloads of death”. The annoying thing is it is going to take 30 to 40 years now before we can say “got ya”. And that is how this whole thing is going to go – the ground shifting, the goal posts moved, the rules changed, hell they may all tell us by 2050 that they’ve been trying to tell us for years that we would be freezing to death in July in both hemispheres.
Next time I want to find a post for discussing the problems with the “scale of things” and what should be done about it – I think that has to be cleared up in no uncertain terms (eg. replacing a coal-fired power plant with a solar panel on your privy)
Well, atleast they are not flat out denying now. Anyone know what’s going on in Europe. Is the “consenses” winning over there or is there hope? Not that I am less concerned here in America, but I think we have a little hope here. I have googling and can’t seem to find anything in mainstream media, even Fox, about the NIPCC’s latest meeting and it’s release of the full report/ summary report. I was wondering if any body has found anything?
When will Not Evil Just Wrong be released in full, as well as State of Fear movie?
Anthony, these Daily Tech articles you post continue to lose credibility. They always exaggerate what the underlying article or study actually says. To your credit, you posted a link to the actual NASA article so your readers can decide for themselves. In this case, the Daily Tech headline is deceiving. It reads, “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming.” I believe the NASA article actually says solar activity is only “partly responsible” for past climate change. That’s a significant difference from “responsible.”
Furthermore, the NASA article says the effect of solar activity is only 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. That has been agreed upon by both sides of the debate for a long time. The bottom line is, I don’t think there is anything new here.
We’re asked to believe that although CO2 is an insignificant percentage of the atmosphere, it has a large positive “feedback” multiplier that lets it affect temperature to the tune of several degrees, yet the main, almost Only, source of heat on the planet, can’t make more than 0.1°C difference.
Back of the envelope figgerin’ says 1,361 watts/m² of solar energy gives us a temperature of roughly 288 K. A 0.1% increase of input should produce a 0.29 K increase in temp, almost three times what they’re offering.
Must be some hidden, unexplained cosmic constant Negative feedback in the equation somewhere. Darned if I can find it.
Per Cent is per one hundred, so of the thirteen hundreds, one and a third w/msq is 0.1%. This per stuff makes everything so confusing. Less than a millenia ago arabic numerals replaced Roman ones for accounts. They used abacuses and such like.
==================================
They only included TSI.
Even despite the tremendous evidence, they still don’t acknowledge indirect (magnetic) effects. It’s well documented that it affects cloud cover (even if we don’t know exactly how–yet) and well documented that cloud cover affects temperature. Even TAR and 4AR acknowledge indirect effects…right before they proceed to ignore it.
But let’s not let facts get in the way…
“ Right now, we are in between major ice ages, . . ”
How do they know? Take some time to think about this.
They know because of the Milankovitch cycles, one thing they can actually predict.
“E.M.Smith (17:55:44) : It was 68F on my patio this afternoon. Again. In “summer”….”
And how about that cold wind here in the San Francisco Bay Area!
Robert Wood (18:43:16) :
Yes, NASA’s planetary exploration & science is a crowning achievement.
The planetary climates they found should help them to unravel some of the mysteries of our own planet’s climate. In the broader sense of the entire Solar System, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be doing that.
Unfortunately for NASA, Hansen jumped the gun.
That too can be corrected.
“”RoyFOMR (18:01:07) : The Government bench..about six or seven bodies… the opposition (of all shades) have maybe 3 times that number.
Folks , we’re talking 30 out of about 650 elected…””
Politicians are yawning at global warming just like the public is.